OT:Why does Snit persist in believing that people are as stupid as he needs them to be? Pt. 2
Steve Carroll
"war criminal" as he sought Snit's opinion about the following:
"So Snit, I am curious about something. If the above is indeed legally
valid as you claim, then it would seem that a bunch of things are
implied by this - :
1) Bill Clinton, who attacked Kosovo without the US being attacked or
the UN approving our actions, is also a war criminal, and should be
prosecuted as such."
Snit broke in with:
"I know less about it, but I would not argue against you if you wanted
to make the point."
(the obvious question here is: WHy does Snit use these two main points
to argue Bush's guilt but not Clinton's?)
Bob B continued:
"2) Daschle, Lieberman, and many other leading Democrats who voted for
the resolution supporting the 'illegal' invasion of Iraq should also
be tried as war criminals, perhaps as part of some sort of RICO
conspiracy to commit an illegal war, correct?"
Snit broke in with:
"Of course."
Bob B continued:
"3) The war against Afghanistan was also illegal, since they never
attacked us, but merely offered shelter to those who did. I believe
all the Democrats running for President supported this war, even
Howard Dean. He probably can't be tried for just 'supporting' an
illegal war, but he did support it, didn't he?"
Snit broke in with:
"It is true that we had other options (like accepting the offer to
place Bin Laden in legal custody). Harder to call, but I would not
argue against you if you wanted to make the point."
Bob B continued:
"4) And of course Wesley Clark, as one of the commanders that ran the
Kosovo war, should also be tried as a war criminal."
Snit broke in with:
"I know less about it, but I would not argue against you if you wanted
to make the point."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/c53a52b7ed95ea15?hl=en&dmode=source
Bob B then wondered aloud, as had several of us, why Snit was always
seen focusing only on Bush:
"Well, you seem to be very aggressive about calling Bush a war
criminal, but you never mention all these others who also seem to
qualify."
Snit broke in with:
"Currently Bush and those that follow him are the ones committing the
crimes. Also, he is doing so in a more blatant and aggressive fashion
than anyone else in recent US history. He is spitting on the world
community. As far as Clinton, if you look at my comments above, I
stated I do not know enough to argue one way or the other. If someone
wanted to flesh out an argument I would be happy to give an opinion if
you want."
Bob B continued:
"But to sum up your claim, basically you think that the two most
recent presidents, plus all the major party candidates for president,
plus most members of congress are war criminals."
Snit broke in with:
"No - just the ones who are actively committing war crimes, if not in
a strictly legal sense, in a moral one."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/126807807bf62d8a?hl=en&dmode=source
--
*Anyone who can comprehend what they read can clearly see Snit just
flatly stated that the only people he considers to be "war criminals"
are limited to "just the ones who are actively committing war crimes".
This necessarily means that, today, if Snit is to remain consistent
with his "logic" shown here, he no longer considers Bush to be a "war
criminal". This also necessarily means that Snit *must* believe
Barrack Obama is a "war criminal".
My prediction: Snit would not agree with this assessment. Snit would
claim that he did not say what Google proves he said... and his pal
"Joel" will agree.
Bob B then asks Snit the obvious question regarding Snit's bizarre
position:
"So you only care about war crimes while they are happening, but not
those of the recent past? So if Bush loses the election next year, you
will just forget about his "crimes"?"
Snit's astonishing reply proved that Snit wasn't even paying attention
to what he himself was posting (a thing I, and others, had been
pointing out for awhile):
"Never hinted, suggested, stated, or implied that this was the case."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/71a0c75785ed7fc5?hl=en&dmode=source
Bob B replied:
"Yes you did - look above, I asked why you focus on Bush and ignore
others, and you said its because he is currently committing the
crimes. When he is out of office, he won't be committing any "crimes",
so by your own admission you won't be so interested."
Snit broke in with:
"Never hinted, suggested, stated, or implied that this was the case. "
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/ac8cf8331ba58663?hl=en&dmode=source
Bob B continued:
"Huh? Do you even read what anyone else says, or do you just cut &
paste the same "answer" no matter what the reply?"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/7a69f1a29c422341?hl=en&dmode=source
Does Snit *really* think people are *this* stupid?
Steve Carroll
>
> Bob B then wondered aloud, as had several of us, why Snit was always
> seen focusing only on Bush:
> "Well, you seem to be very aggressive about calling Bush a war
> criminal, but you never mention all these others who also seem to
> qualify."
>
> Snit broke in with:
> "Currently Bush and those that follow him are the ones committing the
> crimes. Also, he is doing so in a more blatant and aggressive fashion
> than anyone else in recent US history. He is spitting on the world
> community. As far as Clinton, if you look at my comments above, I
> stated I do not know enough to argue one way or the other. If someone
> wanted to flesh out an argument I would be happy to give an opinion if
> you want."
>
> Bob B continued:
> "But to sum up your claim, basically you think that the two most
> recent presidents, plus all the major party candidates for president,
> plus most members of congress are war criminals."
>
> Snit broke in with:
> "No - just the ones who are actively committing war crimes, if not in
>
> --
>
> *Anyone who can comprehend what they read can clearly see Snit just
> flatly stated that the only people he considers to be "war criminals"
> are limited to "just the ones who are actively committing war crimes".
> This necessarily means that, today, if Snit is to remain consistent
> with his "logic" shown here, he no longer considers Bush to be a "war
> criminal". This also necessarily means that Snit *must* believe
> Barrack Obama is a "war criminal".
>
> My prediction: Snit would not agree with this assessment. Snit would
> claim that he did not say what Google proves he said... and his pal
> "Joel" will agree.
>
> Bob B then asks Snit the obvious question regarding Snit's bizarre
> position:
> "So you only care about war crimes while they are happening, but not
> those of the recent past? So if Bush loses the election next year, you
> will just forget about his "crimes"?"
>
> Snit's astonishing reply proved that Snit wasn't even paying attention
> to what he himself was posting (a thing I, and others, had been
> pointing out for awhile):
>
> Bob B replied:
> "Yes you did - look above, I asked why you focus on Bush and ignore
> others, and you said its because he is currently committing the
> crimes. When he is out of office, he won't be committing any "crimes",
> so by your own admission you won't be so interested."
>
> Snit broke in with:
>
> Bob B continued:
> "Huh? Do you even read what anyone else says, or do you just cut &
>
> Does Snit *really* think people are *this* stupid?
(crickets chirping)